Three questionsParity on Windows 64bit QuestionsI want to clear out my idea of mining. Could someone verify and add missing concepts?Next to impossible to get a node syncedTwo out of three rigs having hard freezesSingle gpu mining on ethpool.org: payback questionsWould this three address Ethereum transaction be possible through Geth?How exactly is computation performed on EVM by every nodeTwo Questions Regarding the Plasma Side-Chain and Contract stuffError: VM Exception while processing transaction: revert due to require statementQuestions about blockchain

bash vs. zsh: What are the practical differences?

Why are ambiguous grammars bad?

Make Gimbap cutter

Suppose leased car is totalled: what are financial implications?

Do you have to have figures when playing D&D?

Diatonic chords of a pentatonic vs blues scale?

What are the unintended or dangerous consequences of allowing spells that target and damage creatures to also target and damage objects?

Should I put programming books I wrote a few years ago on my resume?

Difference between prepositions in "...killed during/in the war"

What should I discuss with my DM prior to my first game?

A Salute to Poetry

If there's something that implicates the president why is there then a national security issue? (John Dowd)

Flight compensation with agent

Does a (nice) centerless group always have a centerless profinite completion?

As easy as Three, Two, One... How fast can you go from Five to Four?

How (un)safe is it to ride barefoot?

So a part of my house disappeared... But not because of a chunk resetting

Trying to get (more) accurate readings from thermistor (electronics, math, and code inside)

Grep Match and extract

I've been given a project I can't complete, what should I do?

What is the logic behind charging tax _in the form of money_ for owning property when the property does not produce money?

Are the guests in Westworld forbidden to tell the hosts that they are robots?

How to write a convincing religious myth?

Canada travel to US using Global Entry



Three questions


Parity on Windows 64bit QuestionsI want to clear out my idea of mining. Could someone verify and add missing concepts?Next to impossible to get a node syncedTwo out of three rigs having hard freezesSingle gpu mining on ethpool.org: payback questionsWould this three address Ethereum transaction be possible through Geth?How exactly is computation performed on EVM by every nodeTwo Questions Regarding the Plasma Side-Chain and Contract stuffError: VM Exception while processing transaction: revert due to require statementQuestions about blockchain













1















I have recently become interested in crypto and after much reading on Ethereum I still have three burning questions that perhaps some of you can help with. Apologies in advance as some of these might be extremely basic and/or make little sense due to some misconceptions I might have. Here they go:



  1. I understand that, when running code on the Ethereum network, transaction fees are paid in gas. Are these fees paid directly to those who commit their computational resources to running this code? Are these people what you call “miners”?


  2. If the answer to the above is yes, why does new Ether have to be created to reward these miners at all? Aren’t they getting rewarded by the fees?


  3. When people talk about Ethereum moving from PoW to PoS, how exactly would PoS help in running these smart contracts? I was under the impression that under Ethereum’s PoW, miners commit their resources to running smart contracts, so who would run these under PoS?


Thank you!










share|improve this question









New contributor



Álvaro Prat Hernando is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.



















  • I find that the best way to clear up confusion about these sorts of fundamental questions is to read the original bitcoin whitepaper. It is relatively accessible and really is critical to understand. Often people jump into Ethereum with this vague notion of a "world computer" and fundamental misunderstandings about the purpose of a blockchain that could be cleared up by going back to basics.

    – Tjaden Hess
    7 hours ago
















1















I have recently become interested in crypto and after much reading on Ethereum I still have three burning questions that perhaps some of you can help with. Apologies in advance as some of these might be extremely basic and/or make little sense due to some misconceptions I might have. Here they go:



  1. I understand that, when running code on the Ethereum network, transaction fees are paid in gas. Are these fees paid directly to those who commit their computational resources to running this code? Are these people what you call “miners”?


  2. If the answer to the above is yes, why does new Ether have to be created to reward these miners at all? Aren’t they getting rewarded by the fees?


  3. When people talk about Ethereum moving from PoW to PoS, how exactly would PoS help in running these smart contracts? I was under the impression that under Ethereum’s PoW, miners commit their resources to running smart contracts, so who would run these under PoS?


Thank you!










share|improve this question









New contributor



Álvaro Prat Hernando is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.



















  • I find that the best way to clear up confusion about these sorts of fundamental questions is to read the original bitcoin whitepaper. It is relatively accessible and really is critical to understand. Often people jump into Ethereum with this vague notion of a "world computer" and fundamental misunderstandings about the purpose of a blockchain that could be cleared up by going back to basics.

    – Tjaden Hess
    7 hours ago














1












1








1








I have recently become interested in crypto and after much reading on Ethereum I still have three burning questions that perhaps some of you can help with. Apologies in advance as some of these might be extremely basic and/or make little sense due to some misconceptions I might have. Here they go:



  1. I understand that, when running code on the Ethereum network, transaction fees are paid in gas. Are these fees paid directly to those who commit their computational resources to running this code? Are these people what you call “miners”?


  2. If the answer to the above is yes, why does new Ether have to be created to reward these miners at all? Aren’t they getting rewarded by the fees?


  3. When people talk about Ethereum moving from PoW to PoS, how exactly would PoS help in running these smart contracts? I was under the impression that under Ethereum’s PoW, miners commit their resources to running smart contracts, so who would run these under PoS?


Thank you!










share|improve this question









New contributor



Álvaro Prat Hernando is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.











I have recently become interested in crypto and after much reading on Ethereum I still have three burning questions that perhaps some of you can help with. Apologies in advance as some of these might be extremely basic and/or make little sense due to some misconceptions I might have. Here they go:



  1. I understand that, when running code on the Ethereum network, transaction fees are paid in gas. Are these fees paid directly to those who commit their computational resources to running this code? Are these people what you call “miners”?


  2. If the answer to the above is yes, why does new Ether have to be created to reward these miners at all? Aren’t they getting rewarded by the fees?


  3. When people talk about Ethereum moving from PoW to PoS, how exactly would PoS help in running these smart contracts? I was under the impression that under Ethereum’s PoW, miners commit their resources to running smart contracts, so who would run these under PoS?


Thank you!







blockchain ether mining consensus






share|improve this question









New contributor



Álvaro Prat Hernando is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.










share|improve this question









New contributor



Álvaro Prat Hernando is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.








share|improve this question




share|improve this question








edited 7 hours ago









Rob Hitchens - B9lab

30.6k74586




30.6k74586






New contributor



Álvaro Prat Hernando is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.








asked 8 hours ago









Álvaro Prat HernandoÁlvaro Prat Hernando

61




61




New contributor



Álvaro Prat Hernando is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.




New contributor




Álvaro Prat Hernando is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.














  • I find that the best way to clear up confusion about these sorts of fundamental questions is to read the original bitcoin whitepaper. It is relatively accessible and really is critical to understand. Often people jump into Ethereum with this vague notion of a "world computer" and fundamental misunderstandings about the purpose of a blockchain that could be cleared up by going back to basics.

    – Tjaden Hess
    7 hours ago


















  • I find that the best way to clear up confusion about these sorts of fundamental questions is to read the original bitcoin whitepaper. It is relatively accessible and really is critical to understand. Often people jump into Ethereum with this vague notion of a "world computer" and fundamental misunderstandings about the purpose of a blockchain that could be cleared up by going back to basics.

    – Tjaden Hess
    7 hours ago

















I find that the best way to clear up confusion about these sorts of fundamental questions is to read the original bitcoin whitepaper. It is relatively accessible and really is critical to understand. Often people jump into Ethereum with this vague notion of a "world computer" and fundamental misunderstandings about the purpose of a blockchain that could be cleared up by going back to basics.

– Tjaden Hess
7 hours ago






I find that the best way to clear up confusion about these sorts of fundamental questions is to read the original bitcoin whitepaper. It is relatively accessible and really is critical to understand. Often people jump into Ethereum with this vague notion of a "world computer" and fundamental misunderstandings about the purpose of a blockchain that could be cleared up by going back to basics.

– Tjaden Hess
7 hours ago











1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes


















2














Your questions hint at some conceptual confusion. Fairly common misunderstandings.



"Consensus" is not about the results of transactions or contracts. It's mainly about disambiguating transaction order. With deterministic contract functions (they are) and an agreed transaction order (consensus), each node runs transactions for themselves. They rely on no one else for their conclusions about the world state.




I understand that, when running code on the Ethereum network, transaction fees are paid in gas. Are these fees paid directly to those who commit their computational resources to running this code? Are these people what you call “miners”?




No.



PoW requires an incentive to encourage people to devote resources to the consensus process that helps secure the network. In PoW, the transaction fees are paid to the miner that finds a solution to a block. This is a competitive, adversarial process that uses the brute force of combined computing power to raise the threshold of raw power required to alter the course of the network.



Everyone (all full nodes) runs all transactions.




If the answer to the above is yes, why does new Ether have to be created to reward these miners at all? Aren’t they getting rewarded by the fees?




The answer is No, but this deserves clarification. They are being rewarded with mining rewards to find blocks while the transaction fees per block are relatively low (zero, at the start). Mining rewards have been and will likely be reduced over time, possibly to zero, when transaction fees are sufficient to motivate a robust mining network.



As you know, PoW is slated to be replaced by PoS that will change the arrangement entirely.




When people talk about Ethereum moving from PoW to PoS, how exactly would PoS help in running these smart contracts? I was under the impression that under Ethereum’s PoW, miners commit their resources to running smart contracts, so who would run these under PoS?




PoS and PoW do not help with running contracts. They collapse the ambiguity of transaction order. Transaction order is ambiguous because network latency ensures that nodes learn about pending transactions in different orders. Since no one's clock is any more trustworthy than anyone else's, and since a centralized time source would be a single point of failure (contrary to the idea of a decentralized system) another method is required to establish a consensus about the agreed transaction order.



PoS, PoW, et al, do not attempt to establish a correct order in temporal time. They are methods of reaching an agreement, a.k.a. consensus, about the de facto, canonical order. The blockchain is well-ordered set of blocks with each block containing a well-ordered set of transactions. In all, it is a well-ordered set of transactions. It is not the order the transactions were sent. It is the order the transactions were accepted and processed, and all nodes must process the transactions in this order to synchronize with the network.



With an agreed order of inputs and deterministic functions, each node is then able to construct, for itself, the world state. Each node runs each transaction in order the transactions were accepted by the network, per the consensus protocol.



It's somewhat similar to using a change log to reconstruct a copy of a database. It's not necessary to have a copy of the state if one has a well-ordered log of changes to the state.



PoW itself is a deliberately inefficient method, by design. It has certain properties such as blocktime, meaning annoucements about new blocks will arrive, on average, at a certain pace. It is not the only way to reach a consensus about the order of transactions. Alternatives make various tradeoffs, usually in favor of reducing waste, increasing speed and capacity and with different arguments about how the algorithm attempts to discourage centralization.



Non-miners/verifiers/minters are not really assisted in terms of actually running the contracts, but the network itself could, for example, go much faster if the blocks arrive at a faster pace or contain more work per block.



Have a look at this for a conceptual overview: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Za5lPKNV_Mk



Hope it helps.






share|improve this answer


















  • 1





    "Consensus" is not about the results of transactions or contracts. It's mainly about disambiguating transaction order." This should be plastered on the top of every blockchain-related website

    – Tjaden Hess
    7 hours ago











  • Thanks. You made my day. :-)

    – Rob Hitchens - B9lab
    7 hours ago











Your Answer








StackExchange.ready(function()
var channelOptions =
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "642"
;
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
createEditor();
);

else
createEditor();

);

function createEditor()
StackExchange.prepareEditor(
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader:
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
,
onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
);



);






Álvaro Prat Hernando is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.









draft saved

draft discarded


















StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fethereum.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f71648%2fthree-questions%23new-answer', 'question_page');

);

Post as a guest















Required, but never shown

























1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes








1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes









active

oldest

votes






active

oldest

votes









2














Your questions hint at some conceptual confusion. Fairly common misunderstandings.



"Consensus" is not about the results of transactions or contracts. It's mainly about disambiguating transaction order. With deterministic contract functions (they are) and an agreed transaction order (consensus), each node runs transactions for themselves. They rely on no one else for their conclusions about the world state.




I understand that, when running code on the Ethereum network, transaction fees are paid in gas. Are these fees paid directly to those who commit their computational resources to running this code? Are these people what you call “miners”?




No.



PoW requires an incentive to encourage people to devote resources to the consensus process that helps secure the network. In PoW, the transaction fees are paid to the miner that finds a solution to a block. This is a competitive, adversarial process that uses the brute force of combined computing power to raise the threshold of raw power required to alter the course of the network.



Everyone (all full nodes) runs all transactions.




If the answer to the above is yes, why does new Ether have to be created to reward these miners at all? Aren’t they getting rewarded by the fees?




The answer is No, but this deserves clarification. They are being rewarded with mining rewards to find blocks while the transaction fees per block are relatively low (zero, at the start). Mining rewards have been and will likely be reduced over time, possibly to zero, when transaction fees are sufficient to motivate a robust mining network.



As you know, PoW is slated to be replaced by PoS that will change the arrangement entirely.




When people talk about Ethereum moving from PoW to PoS, how exactly would PoS help in running these smart contracts? I was under the impression that under Ethereum’s PoW, miners commit their resources to running smart contracts, so who would run these under PoS?




PoS and PoW do not help with running contracts. They collapse the ambiguity of transaction order. Transaction order is ambiguous because network latency ensures that nodes learn about pending transactions in different orders. Since no one's clock is any more trustworthy than anyone else's, and since a centralized time source would be a single point of failure (contrary to the idea of a decentralized system) another method is required to establish a consensus about the agreed transaction order.



PoS, PoW, et al, do not attempt to establish a correct order in temporal time. They are methods of reaching an agreement, a.k.a. consensus, about the de facto, canonical order. The blockchain is well-ordered set of blocks with each block containing a well-ordered set of transactions. In all, it is a well-ordered set of transactions. It is not the order the transactions were sent. It is the order the transactions were accepted and processed, and all nodes must process the transactions in this order to synchronize with the network.



With an agreed order of inputs and deterministic functions, each node is then able to construct, for itself, the world state. Each node runs each transaction in order the transactions were accepted by the network, per the consensus protocol.



It's somewhat similar to using a change log to reconstruct a copy of a database. It's not necessary to have a copy of the state if one has a well-ordered log of changes to the state.



PoW itself is a deliberately inefficient method, by design. It has certain properties such as blocktime, meaning annoucements about new blocks will arrive, on average, at a certain pace. It is not the only way to reach a consensus about the order of transactions. Alternatives make various tradeoffs, usually in favor of reducing waste, increasing speed and capacity and with different arguments about how the algorithm attempts to discourage centralization.



Non-miners/verifiers/minters are not really assisted in terms of actually running the contracts, but the network itself could, for example, go much faster if the blocks arrive at a faster pace or contain more work per block.



Have a look at this for a conceptual overview: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Za5lPKNV_Mk



Hope it helps.






share|improve this answer


















  • 1





    "Consensus" is not about the results of transactions or contracts. It's mainly about disambiguating transaction order." This should be plastered on the top of every blockchain-related website

    – Tjaden Hess
    7 hours ago











  • Thanks. You made my day. :-)

    – Rob Hitchens - B9lab
    7 hours ago















2














Your questions hint at some conceptual confusion. Fairly common misunderstandings.



"Consensus" is not about the results of transactions or contracts. It's mainly about disambiguating transaction order. With deterministic contract functions (they are) and an agreed transaction order (consensus), each node runs transactions for themselves. They rely on no one else for their conclusions about the world state.




I understand that, when running code on the Ethereum network, transaction fees are paid in gas. Are these fees paid directly to those who commit their computational resources to running this code? Are these people what you call “miners”?




No.



PoW requires an incentive to encourage people to devote resources to the consensus process that helps secure the network. In PoW, the transaction fees are paid to the miner that finds a solution to a block. This is a competitive, adversarial process that uses the brute force of combined computing power to raise the threshold of raw power required to alter the course of the network.



Everyone (all full nodes) runs all transactions.




If the answer to the above is yes, why does new Ether have to be created to reward these miners at all? Aren’t they getting rewarded by the fees?




The answer is No, but this deserves clarification. They are being rewarded with mining rewards to find blocks while the transaction fees per block are relatively low (zero, at the start). Mining rewards have been and will likely be reduced over time, possibly to zero, when transaction fees are sufficient to motivate a robust mining network.



As you know, PoW is slated to be replaced by PoS that will change the arrangement entirely.




When people talk about Ethereum moving from PoW to PoS, how exactly would PoS help in running these smart contracts? I was under the impression that under Ethereum’s PoW, miners commit their resources to running smart contracts, so who would run these under PoS?




PoS and PoW do not help with running contracts. They collapse the ambiguity of transaction order. Transaction order is ambiguous because network latency ensures that nodes learn about pending transactions in different orders. Since no one's clock is any more trustworthy than anyone else's, and since a centralized time source would be a single point of failure (contrary to the idea of a decentralized system) another method is required to establish a consensus about the agreed transaction order.



PoS, PoW, et al, do not attempt to establish a correct order in temporal time. They are methods of reaching an agreement, a.k.a. consensus, about the de facto, canonical order. The blockchain is well-ordered set of blocks with each block containing a well-ordered set of transactions. In all, it is a well-ordered set of transactions. It is not the order the transactions were sent. It is the order the transactions were accepted and processed, and all nodes must process the transactions in this order to synchronize with the network.



With an agreed order of inputs and deterministic functions, each node is then able to construct, for itself, the world state. Each node runs each transaction in order the transactions were accepted by the network, per the consensus protocol.



It's somewhat similar to using a change log to reconstruct a copy of a database. It's not necessary to have a copy of the state if one has a well-ordered log of changes to the state.



PoW itself is a deliberately inefficient method, by design. It has certain properties such as blocktime, meaning annoucements about new blocks will arrive, on average, at a certain pace. It is not the only way to reach a consensus about the order of transactions. Alternatives make various tradeoffs, usually in favor of reducing waste, increasing speed and capacity and with different arguments about how the algorithm attempts to discourage centralization.



Non-miners/verifiers/minters are not really assisted in terms of actually running the contracts, but the network itself could, for example, go much faster if the blocks arrive at a faster pace or contain more work per block.



Have a look at this for a conceptual overview: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Za5lPKNV_Mk



Hope it helps.






share|improve this answer


















  • 1





    "Consensus" is not about the results of transactions or contracts. It's mainly about disambiguating transaction order." This should be plastered on the top of every blockchain-related website

    – Tjaden Hess
    7 hours ago











  • Thanks. You made my day. :-)

    – Rob Hitchens - B9lab
    7 hours ago













2












2








2







Your questions hint at some conceptual confusion. Fairly common misunderstandings.



"Consensus" is not about the results of transactions or contracts. It's mainly about disambiguating transaction order. With deterministic contract functions (they are) and an agreed transaction order (consensus), each node runs transactions for themselves. They rely on no one else for their conclusions about the world state.




I understand that, when running code on the Ethereum network, transaction fees are paid in gas. Are these fees paid directly to those who commit their computational resources to running this code? Are these people what you call “miners”?




No.



PoW requires an incentive to encourage people to devote resources to the consensus process that helps secure the network. In PoW, the transaction fees are paid to the miner that finds a solution to a block. This is a competitive, adversarial process that uses the brute force of combined computing power to raise the threshold of raw power required to alter the course of the network.



Everyone (all full nodes) runs all transactions.




If the answer to the above is yes, why does new Ether have to be created to reward these miners at all? Aren’t they getting rewarded by the fees?




The answer is No, but this deserves clarification. They are being rewarded with mining rewards to find blocks while the transaction fees per block are relatively low (zero, at the start). Mining rewards have been and will likely be reduced over time, possibly to zero, when transaction fees are sufficient to motivate a robust mining network.



As you know, PoW is slated to be replaced by PoS that will change the arrangement entirely.




When people talk about Ethereum moving from PoW to PoS, how exactly would PoS help in running these smart contracts? I was under the impression that under Ethereum’s PoW, miners commit their resources to running smart contracts, so who would run these under PoS?




PoS and PoW do not help with running contracts. They collapse the ambiguity of transaction order. Transaction order is ambiguous because network latency ensures that nodes learn about pending transactions in different orders. Since no one's clock is any more trustworthy than anyone else's, and since a centralized time source would be a single point of failure (contrary to the idea of a decentralized system) another method is required to establish a consensus about the agreed transaction order.



PoS, PoW, et al, do not attempt to establish a correct order in temporal time. They are methods of reaching an agreement, a.k.a. consensus, about the de facto, canonical order. The blockchain is well-ordered set of blocks with each block containing a well-ordered set of transactions. In all, it is a well-ordered set of transactions. It is not the order the transactions were sent. It is the order the transactions were accepted and processed, and all nodes must process the transactions in this order to synchronize with the network.



With an agreed order of inputs and deterministic functions, each node is then able to construct, for itself, the world state. Each node runs each transaction in order the transactions were accepted by the network, per the consensus protocol.



It's somewhat similar to using a change log to reconstruct a copy of a database. It's not necessary to have a copy of the state if one has a well-ordered log of changes to the state.



PoW itself is a deliberately inefficient method, by design. It has certain properties such as blocktime, meaning annoucements about new blocks will arrive, on average, at a certain pace. It is not the only way to reach a consensus about the order of transactions. Alternatives make various tradeoffs, usually in favor of reducing waste, increasing speed and capacity and with different arguments about how the algorithm attempts to discourage centralization.



Non-miners/verifiers/minters are not really assisted in terms of actually running the contracts, but the network itself could, for example, go much faster if the blocks arrive at a faster pace or contain more work per block.



Have a look at this for a conceptual overview: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Za5lPKNV_Mk



Hope it helps.






share|improve this answer













Your questions hint at some conceptual confusion. Fairly common misunderstandings.



"Consensus" is not about the results of transactions or contracts. It's mainly about disambiguating transaction order. With deterministic contract functions (they are) and an agreed transaction order (consensus), each node runs transactions for themselves. They rely on no one else for their conclusions about the world state.




I understand that, when running code on the Ethereum network, transaction fees are paid in gas. Are these fees paid directly to those who commit their computational resources to running this code? Are these people what you call “miners”?




No.



PoW requires an incentive to encourage people to devote resources to the consensus process that helps secure the network. In PoW, the transaction fees are paid to the miner that finds a solution to a block. This is a competitive, adversarial process that uses the brute force of combined computing power to raise the threshold of raw power required to alter the course of the network.



Everyone (all full nodes) runs all transactions.




If the answer to the above is yes, why does new Ether have to be created to reward these miners at all? Aren’t they getting rewarded by the fees?




The answer is No, but this deserves clarification. They are being rewarded with mining rewards to find blocks while the transaction fees per block are relatively low (zero, at the start). Mining rewards have been and will likely be reduced over time, possibly to zero, when transaction fees are sufficient to motivate a robust mining network.



As you know, PoW is slated to be replaced by PoS that will change the arrangement entirely.




When people talk about Ethereum moving from PoW to PoS, how exactly would PoS help in running these smart contracts? I was under the impression that under Ethereum’s PoW, miners commit their resources to running smart contracts, so who would run these under PoS?




PoS and PoW do not help with running contracts. They collapse the ambiguity of transaction order. Transaction order is ambiguous because network latency ensures that nodes learn about pending transactions in different orders. Since no one's clock is any more trustworthy than anyone else's, and since a centralized time source would be a single point of failure (contrary to the idea of a decentralized system) another method is required to establish a consensus about the agreed transaction order.



PoS, PoW, et al, do not attempt to establish a correct order in temporal time. They are methods of reaching an agreement, a.k.a. consensus, about the de facto, canonical order. The blockchain is well-ordered set of blocks with each block containing a well-ordered set of transactions. In all, it is a well-ordered set of transactions. It is not the order the transactions were sent. It is the order the transactions were accepted and processed, and all nodes must process the transactions in this order to synchronize with the network.



With an agreed order of inputs and deterministic functions, each node is then able to construct, for itself, the world state. Each node runs each transaction in order the transactions were accepted by the network, per the consensus protocol.



It's somewhat similar to using a change log to reconstruct a copy of a database. It's not necessary to have a copy of the state if one has a well-ordered log of changes to the state.



PoW itself is a deliberately inefficient method, by design. It has certain properties such as blocktime, meaning annoucements about new blocks will arrive, on average, at a certain pace. It is not the only way to reach a consensus about the order of transactions. Alternatives make various tradeoffs, usually in favor of reducing waste, increasing speed and capacity and with different arguments about how the algorithm attempts to discourage centralization.



Non-miners/verifiers/minters are not really assisted in terms of actually running the contracts, but the network itself could, for example, go much faster if the blocks arrive at a faster pace or contain more work per block.



Have a look at this for a conceptual overview: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Za5lPKNV_Mk



Hope it helps.







share|improve this answer












share|improve this answer



share|improve this answer










answered 7 hours ago









Rob Hitchens - B9labRob Hitchens - B9lab

30.6k74586




30.6k74586







  • 1





    "Consensus" is not about the results of transactions or contracts. It's mainly about disambiguating transaction order." This should be plastered on the top of every blockchain-related website

    – Tjaden Hess
    7 hours ago











  • Thanks. You made my day. :-)

    – Rob Hitchens - B9lab
    7 hours ago












  • 1





    "Consensus" is not about the results of transactions or contracts. It's mainly about disambiguating transaction order." This should be plastered on the top of every blockchain-related website

    – Tjaden Hess
    7 hours ago











  • Thanks. You made my day. :-)

    – Rob Hitchens - B9lab
    7 hours ago







1




1





"Consensus" is not about the results of transactions or contracts. It's mainly about disambiguating transaction order." This should be plastered on the top of every blockchain-related website

– Tjaden Hess
7 hours ago





"Consensus" is not about the results of transactions or contracts. It's mainly about disambiguating transaction order." This should be plastered on the top of every blockchain-related website

– Tjaden Hess
7 hours ago













Thanks. You made my day. :-)

– Rob Hitchens - B9lab
7 hours ago





Thanks. You made my day. :-)

– Rob Hitchens - B9lab
7 hours ago










Álvaro Prat Hernando is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.









draft saved

draft discarded


















Álvaro Prat Hernando is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.












Álvaro Prat Hernando is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.











Álvaro Prat Hernando is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.














Thanks for contributing an answer to Ethereum Stack Exchange!


  • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

But avoid


  • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

  • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.

To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




draft saved


draft discarded














StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fethereum.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f71648%2fthree-questions%23new-answer', 'question_page');

);

Post as a guest















Required, but never shown





















































Required, but never shown














Required, but never shown












Required, but never shown







Required, but never shown

































Required, but never shown














Required, but never shown












Required, but never shown







Required, but never shown







Popular posts from this blog

Invision Community Contents History See also References External links Navigation menuProprietaryinvisioncommunity.comIPS Community ForumsIPS Community Forumsthis blog entry"License Changes, IP.Board 3.4, and the Future""Interview -- Matt Mecham of Ibforums""CEO Invision Power Board, Matt Mecham Is a Liar, Thief!"IPB License Explanation 1.3, 1.3.1, 2.0, and 2.1ArchivedSecurity Fixes, Updates And Enhancements For IPB 1.3.1Archived"New Demo Accounts - Invision Power Services"the original"New Default Skin"the original"Invision Power Board 3.0.0 and Applications Released"the original"Archived copy"the original"Perpetual licenses being done away with""Release Notes - Invision Power Services""Introducing: IPS Community Suite 4!"Invision Community Release Notes

Canceling a color specificationRandomly assigning color to Graphics3D objects?Default color for Filling in Mathematica 9Coloring specific elements of sets with a prime modified order in an array plotHow to pick a color differing significantly from the colors already in a given color list?Detection of the text colorColor numbers based on their valueCan color schemes for use with ColorData include opacity specification?My dynamic color schemes

Ласкавець круглолистий Зміст Опис | Поширення | Галерея | Примітки | Посилання | Навігаційне меню58171138361-22960890446Bupleurum rotundifoliumEuro+Med PlantbasePlants of the World Online — Kew ScienceGermplasm Resources Information Network (GRIN)Ласкавецькн. VI : Літери Ком — Левиправивши або дописавши її